Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Punished UMN]

Yes, you should. That is part of being a conscientious citizens.

For their health and safety, yes. But not what they do in their own home, or in the company of themselves in public.

1) Not just for their health and safety. For social interests. That is why we can, for example, interfere in hiring practices.
2) What if what they are doing in their own home is detrimental to their health and safety?

[Celritannia]

1. Which is why there is a need to show a difference between polyamory and polygamy. Polyamory is one partner having multiple partners. It's a companionship of the people involved.

How do you draw a line in the sand legally with any sort of moral or logical authority? You seem convinced that the only factors that matter in such arrangements are the love of those involved and ostensible consent. Recognizing what you call polyamorous marriage and what I call egalitarian polygamy means that you have to recognize all forms of polygamy legally unless you engage in some serious discrimination.

2. By a doctor who studies this field since it is hardly discussed, and a number of actual accounts of polyamorous relationships.

I don't know what you think the social scientists we cited were studying but they mentioned this particular niche community multiple times and emphasized that they're the exception rather than the rule.

4. Yes, because multiple consenting adults is exactly the same as paedophilia. As far as I am away, no polyamorous relationships include children.
To say see means you have little understanding in polyamory.

Again, you're operating with a different definition to the one employed by me and that should be abundantly clear on both sides of the argument by now. Let's try to slip past that by ignoring the conversation over connotations for a moment.

5. Not if you accept the differences between polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy, or one man marrying multiple women is a bad thing.
But multiple people marrying those they love in an honest and compassionate environment is not a bad thing. Why do you thing there is such a need to distinguish the 2? So it is not linked with the patriarchal control of women. That's why.

I don't distinguish the two because I don't really accept your redefinition of terms at the behest of an extreme minority population. But let's move beyond that. In a poly marriage, does someone have to marry every other spouse in the arrangement? Or can one person have three spouses while one of their spouses has different two spouses? If you're not going to insist on extreme regulation of polyamory, you're legalizing formal polygyny and polyandry by default. There's no way to effectively stop them.

6. Again, a rather new topic of discussion with a few sociologists and psychologist looking into it, so of course there is a limit on research.
Does not dispute the actual case studies used or actual accounts of polyamorous families being no different from monogamous ones.

It's not a new topic of conversation. Numerous articles that have been shared acknowledged the small number of people who practice what you call poly marriages.

7. Which can also change through referendums.
No, you see the similarities because of the dangers of patriarchal domination.
It's the same reason why I see the differences to remove the idea of patriarchal domination.
If we do, then we can stop male dominated relationships.
And from what I have seen and read, most polyamorous relationships are no more than 4 people.

How do you get ready of the threat of patriarchal relationships? Are you going to ban polygyny outright? Because that's gender discrimination and illegal under law at the moment.

8. I am doing something, recognising the differences.
Moromons and Arab ones are religion based and Kenyans war lords use it for power.
Why do you think people want polyamory to be seen differently? To not be linked to those male dominated aspects, because that's not what polyamory is meant to be.

Because they don't want to be associated with negative consequences or religious extremism despite the fact that they largely adhere to the functional model in other ways. It perpetuates socioeconomic status in much the same way even when it's white liberals instead of Kenyan businessmen.

9. Again, not if you recognise the differences. By understanding polyamory is not domonating, you can see a difference and thus ban polygamy but accept polyamory.

How can you ban polygamy?

1. Not really, the 2 are easily defined enough to no warrant discrimination.

2. Polyamory is niche with little studying into it.

3. Oh no, you linked polyamory to paedophilia, that is something I cannot forgive, since you indirectly insulted people I know who are polyamorous.

4. It's not my definition, it's an actual definition.
No, I am not. 1 person could have 2 partners yes, but then one of those partners could also have another partner. They all do not have to be married, but neither does one person have to be the only one with more than one partners.

5. Not on Polyamory.

6. You are the one assuming polyamory will lead to patriarchal dominance because you link polygamy to polyamory.
It won't happen if you actually see and understand the differences.

7. No, because there are actual differences.

8. By removing the ability for one man to marry multiple wives. It's not polyamorous if only one person is allowed to marry and thus be in control.

[Celritannia]

For their health and safety, yes. But not what they do in their own home, or in the company of themselves in public.

1) Not just for their health and safety. For social interests. That is why we can, for example, interfere in hiring practices.
2) What if what they are doing in their own home is detrimental to their health and safety?

Their next door neighbours would do that, since they live next door.
I don;t so I have no reason to. I don't even know their names.

[Fahran]

1. Not really, the 2 are easily defined enough to no warrant discrimination.

Explain the mechanisms by which you will legally discriminate between what you call polyamory and what you call polygamy. Do not engage in gender discrimination, sex discrimination, or religious discrimination. Do not nullify the consent of individuals. Go.

[Diopolis]

1. Not really, the 2 are easily defined enough to no warrant discrimination.

Explain the mechanisms by which you will legally discriminate between what you call polyamory and what you call polygamy. Do not engage in gender discrimination, sex discrimination, or religious discrimination. Do not nullify the consent of individuals. Go.

He kind of has to nullify the consent of individuals to some extent. Otherwise he's not banning anything.
Of course, you're just going to get NPC answers about how it doesn't affect you because consenting adults.

[Celritannia]

1. Not really, the 2 are easily defined enough to no warrant discrimination.

Explain the mechanisms by which you will legally discriminate between what you call polyamory and what you call polygamy. Do not engage in gender discrimination or religious discrimination. Go.

Polygamy is the concept which one individual controls the relationship, and does not allow those in his relationship take other partners for themselves.

Polyamory is the concept that has not dominating figure, and all partners involved are able to form relationships with each other or those outside of the polyamorous dynamic.

[Punished UMN]

1) Not just for their health and safety. For social interests. That is why we can, for example, interfere in hiring practices.
2) What if what they are doing in their own home is detrimental to their health and safety?

Their next door neighbours would do that, since they live next door.
I don;t so I have no reason to. I don't even know their names.

Convenient for you to ignore then entire point I was getting at. Stop being obtuse.

[Fahran]

Polygamy is the concept which one individual controls the relationship, and does not allow those in his relationship take other partners for themselves.

And what happens if they don't want other partners? Are you going to accuse them of lying? Social coercion can be subtle yet powerful. The eight wives of a Mormon patriarch are going to tell you that they consent fully to the relationship dynamic and that it honors their beliefs.

Polyamory is the concept that has not dominating figure, and all partners involved are able to form relationships with each other or those outside of the polyamorous dynamic.

The problem is that you lack a legal or political mechanism to regulate this given the present structure of our laws and adopting one that could plausibly work via constitutional amendment would require you to violate the principles you ostensibly support - namely consent as the sole requirement of marriage. You haven't accounted for social and cultural factors at all in formulating this position because you've been focused largely on ideological considerations and the fact that you want your friends to have legal recognition.

I'm not trying to come across as bigoted, spiteful, ugly, or hateful. I think it's super sweet that you're fiercely loyal to your friends and support them. That's a virtue and it makes you a great friend. But it doesn't mean that legal recognition of them won't let other people in on the action. I don't think Mormon patriarchs set out to oppress or be mean to women. No ill will is necessary for a particular social model to cause harm. People can be lovely and pleasant - and the harm will still be there. Kinda like how you don't have to be a vehement sexist or racist to contribute to sexism or racism. That's how social systems work. It sucks but that's where we're at. I can think of a few solutions but none of them are really palatable or logically consistent.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Dio is objectively right lol.

You can certainly believe that.

There was a time when gay marriage was fringe and had no mainsteam acceptance or support, there was a time when trans rights were fringe and had no mainstream acceptance or support etc etc.

Uuuuuuh huh. Well, let me know when pedophilia and zoophilia gain the same widespread mainstream acceptance, recognition and legal protections as gay marriage and trans rights.

The entire social liberal movement is built and relies on continually finding new things to advocate for

And much of the traditional social conservative movement is built and relies on continually finding new things to advocate against. Strawman for a strawman.

this can't even be argued against.

Welp, guess I have no reason to continue engaging with you then. *shrug*

[Fahran]

Uuuuuuh huh. Well, let me know when pedophilia and zoophilia gain the same widespread mainstream acceptance, recognition and legal protections as gay marriage and trans rights.

Again, you're making this argument against the slippery slope in a thread concerning a city recognizing polyamorous partnerships on a forum that has arguably had serious issues with advocacy of the p-word in the past couple years. Just for context.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Dio is objectively right lol.

You can certainly believe that.

Anyone who has even remotely studied the topic believes it because it's the only factual conclusion you can arrive at. You're arguing against the slippery slope when the past 10 years have shown it to be nothing but true.

[Punished UMN]

The main issue itt is the acceptance of the popular but moronic notion that there exist separate personal and political spheres.

[Celritannia]

Their next door neighbours would do that, since they live next door.
I don;t so I have no reason to. I don't even know their names.

Convenient for you to ignore then entire point I was getting at. Stop being obtuse.

Look, in the UK, you let people get on with their lives, it's standard and common cutesy.
If I see actual wrong doing, sure I would report it.
Other than that, the private lives of others do not need interference from others, and would be considered rude.

[Punished UMN]

Convenient for you to ignore then entire point I was getting at. Stop being obtuse.

Look, in the UK, you let people get on with their lives, it's standard and common cutesy.
If I see actual wrong doing, sure I would report it.
Other than that, the private lives of others do not need interference from others, and would be considered rude.

I literally don't know how else to explain to you that social contracts are not private matters. The government conducts marriage, that means the government decides who can get married, and that it does this with the public good in mind.

I likewise do not know how else to explain to you that your interactions with everyone do not occur in isolation, and that these interactions form society and, ultimately, government policy.

Marriage is not a private affair, it is a public affair, and the public gets to decide how it is conducted. That is always how it has been. This notion of "it doesn't affect anyone else" is nonsense, the family is the basic unit of society, around which all other social units are organized and function. The government (i.e. the expression of public will) therefore has every right and duty to regulate it for its own benefit.

[Celritannia]

Look, in the UK, you let people get on with their lives, it's standard and common cutesy.
If I see actual wrong doing, sure I would report it.
Other than that, the private lives of others do not need interference from others, and would be considered rude.

I literally don't know how else to explain to you that social contracts are not private matters. The government conducts marriage, that means the government decides who can get married, and that it does this with the public good in mind.

I likewise do not know how else to explain to you that your interactions with everyone do not occur in isolation, and that these interactions form society and, ultimately, government policy.

Marriage is not a private affair, it is a public affair, and the public gets to decide how it is conducted. That is always how it has been. This notion of "it doesn't affect anyone else" is nonsense, the family is the basic unit of society, around which all other social units are organized and function. The government (i.e. the expression of public will) therefore has every right and duty to regulate it for its own benefit.

Government contracts yes. I am not disputing that.

My interactions with others may be temporary that lead no nothing significant as any actual bonding with others need not take place. Whether something happens or needs to look into is a different matter. Other than that, then people do not need to involve themselves with the private lives of others.

The Government does based on the elected party who the people vote for. Again I am not disputing that.

But a marriage in general is not privy to just anyone. Only a select few of family and friends who know the people getting married attend.
That's when marriage does not affect everyone.
This is no different when people were questioning gay marriage and wanted to know what was happening with their lives because it was not the norm.

[Punished UMN]

I literally don't know how else to explain to you that social contracts are not private matters. The government conducts marriage, that means the government decides who can get married, and that it does this with the public good in mind.

I likewise do not know how else to explain to you that your interactions with everyone do not occur in isolation, and that these interactions form society and, ultimately, government policy.

Marriage is not a private affair, it is a public affair, and the public gets to decide how it is conducted. That is always how it has been. This notion of "it doesn't affect anyone else" is nonsense, the family is the basic unit of society, around which all other social units are organized and function. The government (i.e. the expression of public will) therefore has every right and duty to regulate it for its own benefit.

Government contracts yes. I am not disputing that.

My interactions with others may be temporary that lead no nothing significant as any actual bonding with others need not take place. Whether something happens or needs to look into is a different matter. Other than that, then people do not need to involve themselves with the private lives of others.

The Government does based on the elected party who the people vote for. Again I am not disputing that.

But a marriage in general is not privy to just anyone. Only a select few of family and friends who know the people getting married attend.
That's when marriage does not affect everyone.
This is no different when people were questioning gay marriage and wanted to know what was happening with their lives because it was not the norm.

It's not about wedding attendance, it's about the things that happen after the marriage. The raising of children and imbuing them with social values.

[Fahran]

This is no different when people were questioning gay marriage and wanted to know what was happening with their lives because it was not the norm.

I've already explained why that's a false equivalence.

[Celritannia]

Government contracts yes. I am not disputing that.

My interactions with others may be temporary that lead no nothing significant as any actual bonding with others need not take place. Whether something happens or needs to look into is a different matter. Other than that, then people do not need to involve themselves with the private lives of others.

The Government does based on the elected party who the people vote for. Again I am not disputing that.

But a marriage in general is not privy to just anyone. Only a select few of family and friends who know the people getting married attend.
That's when marriage does not affect everyone.
This is no different when people were questioning gay marriage and wanted to know what was happening with their lives because it was not the norm.

It's not about wedding attendance, it's about the things that happen after the marriage. The raising of children and imbuing them with social values.

Which have no difference than with monogamous marriages.

This is no different when people were questioning gay marriage and wanted to know what was happening with their lives because it was not the norm.

I've already explained why that's a false equivalence.

They are quite similar. People afraid with embracing or altering what the concept of love is, because that's what LGBT marriages fought for too. The inclusion of same sex love.

[Fahran]

They are quite similar. People afraid with embracing or altering what the concept of love is, because that's what LGBT marriages fought for too. The inclusion of same sex love.

It's not so much about altering the concept of what love is in my view. I don't perceive that to be a worthwhile expense of government time and effort. It's about the probable social impacts for me. LGBT+ people won't ever be even a significant minority of the population and they, more or less, wash each other out. Widespread polygyny or polyandry have been practiced in the past, with informal polygyny still occurring often in the West, and there's no reason it wouldn't become widespread enough to impact society in negative ways.

If we could allow what you call polyamorous marriage without mutilating our own logic behind freedom to marry and without violating constitutional and federal protections against discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, gender, and sexual orientation, folks could have their cake and eat it too. But there's not really a solution to the problem at the moment aside from just refusing to acknowledge polyamory at all.

[Punished UMN]

It's not about wedding attendance, it's about the things that happen after the marriage. The raising of children and imbuing them with social values.

Which have no difference than with monogamous marriages.

Yes, actually, they do, as monogamy is in fact a social value.

[Ostroeuropa]

Explain the mechanisms by which you will legally discriminate between what you call polyamory and what you call polygamy. Do not engage in gender discrimination or religious discrimination. Go.

Polygamy is the concept which one individual controls the relationship, and does not allow those in his relationship take other partners for themselves.

Polyamory is the concept that has not dominating figure, and all partners involved are able to form relationships with each other or those outside of the polyamorous dynamic.

This is built on the assumption of an equal power dynamic that is demonstrably not present in society or indeed any relationship, including two-partner set ups. The notion of free and equal participation in a relationship is
dubious.

One partner, or a confluence of them, will inevitably have more power over the relationship than others. In the context of poly relationships, this would seem to undermine your argument that there is a meaningful difference beyond a watering down of the problem.

You seem to take issue with the power dynamic. That is inherent to all relationships, at all times and in all places, whether romantic, platonic, or economic. In a utopian society, you could make the claim that poly relationships are different from polygamous ones and so on, but realistically they're similar, and if we were in a utopian society without power dynamic differences then this conversation would be moot in the first place. Simply asserting "It's different because poly relationships magically transport their participants to a communist utopia" and expecting people to take that seriously is a bit odd. You're *asserting* it's different, but you haven't actually demonstrated it, just claimed "No, because the power dynamics aren't there.". Huh? Really?

I think what you might want to consider is that they *are* there, they're just not the *values of the relationship* and they're not *conscious* of them. This doesn't make it actually any better. A corporation can have a bunch of "Values" it affirms it is based on, but still end up just as much a neoliberal shitpile as one that says "We're in this to make money.".

Consequently, a poly relationship based on the equality of participants and free and open *Values* doesn't actually address the *material fact of power dynamics*.

The difference between a "Progressive" poly relationship and an openly hierarchical polygamous one appears to be stated values. But if the *structure itself* lends itself to exploitation and hierarchy that is largely irrelevant, and as vapid a difference as the corporate example. It doesn't matter what your businesses "Values" are, because business *is a money making structure*. Similarly, poly relationships may well *be a structure of hierarchy between participants* regardless of the "Values" they base it on. "We're not in this to make money" and "There is no dominant figure" are denial. At least the hardcore "We want to exploit workers and make money" and "I want to have several partners and be the center of a harem" variants don't engage in self-deception or grandiose pretensions.

In the context of two-person relationships, power dynamic differences impacts on society are, to put it mildly, already a source of considerable tension and problems. Escalating that through poly relationships seems to me to be questionable, especially if we end up with a lopsided gender distribution, especially as a result of the concentration of capital and social status.
The tiresome liberal creed of pushing the individual above the collective is ludicrous if it leads to the breakdown of society and all individuals being worse off.

I posted earlier about how our current social issues are in part due to a soft trend toward poly dynamics in regards to sex. We have seen a remarkable radicalization and escalation of unhappiness, toxicity, and general failure of institutions in the wake of the financial crisis.

See here;

I mean, society is kind of fucked right now largely because this dynamic has been normalized in peoples behaviors even if they haven't fully consciously embraced it.

The financial crash led to the number of men not having sex to skyrocket, but the number of women having sex stayed the same. This is because women started sleeping with men with money and not other men, with those men with money now having lots of sex partners. (Regardlesss of what the ego-saving excuses feminists about mens personalities and so on which they have popularized, the hard data is that income is the most profound influence here and it happened *practically overnight*. Blaming men for it rather than confronting the fact womens sexuality is based around power and wealth and how negative and toxic that is for a society was done because feminists are basically unable to conceive of this issue as an injustice done by women to men, and are too attached to the notion that women expressing their sexuality is a good thing, rather than a profoundly destructive one as a result of how womens sexuality is constructed. Whether their sexuality can be changed, as I think, or it's biological, is the only legitimate debate here. The feminist notion that "It's because of nice guys" and so on, is provably false. Said only because of female fragility and unwillingness to confront the flaws of womanhood as an identity.). The link between this and the rise of political polarization is well documented. Both the far-left and the alt-right are undersexed and heavily consume pornography according to studies.

As a rule, anti-fa types have less sex than any other political group, and the alt-right is in second place, with the alt-right consuming *magnitudes* more pornography.

The parallels between this dynamic and polyamory should be obvious.

[Crockerland]

This is no different when people were questioning gay marriage and wanted to know what was happening with their lives because it was not the norm.

I've already explained why that's a false equivalence.

They are quite similar. People afraid with embracing or altering what the concept of love is, because that's what LGBT marriages fought for too. The inclusion of same sex love.

LGBT couples wanting to be treated exactly the same as non-LGBT couples is not the same as polyamorous people wanting special treatment.

[Grenartia]

Do you have any hard evidence that its currently the most prevalent?

Yes. There's a pretty broad anthropological consensus on this. Source

"Anthropologically, polygamy is defined as marriage between one person and two or more spouses simultaneously. It exists in two main forms: polygyny, where one man is married to several women, and polyandry, where one woman is married to several men. A third form, group marriage between several men and women, is rare; same‐sex polygamy is very rare. Polygyny is the most common form, including de facto forms, where a person is formally monogamous but socially polygamous, maintaining additional relationships. Contemporary anthropologists explore polygamous kinship and gender relations and the law and politics of polygamy. Focal points include managing love, emotions, and sexuality in polygamy and polygamy's impact on women's and children's health and rights. Polygamy becomes political when minorities such as fundamentalist Mormons claim the practice as a religious or cultural right in majority monogamous societies."

Paywalled source, and I'm not seeing any hard numbers anywhere.

The poly community has a term for men who exclusively seek multiple women for a relationship. Its called unicorn hunting, and isn't looked very highly upon. Which isn't to say that NHA's assertion that such arrangements are outright discriminated against by the rest of the community is entirely accurate.

I feel like what you refer to as the poly community is a largely insular and marginal group within the broader community of people who practice polyamory, especially given that it is a socially accepted practice in many regions, and within the West, where monogamy has become the more conventional social model. You have to exclude fundamentalist Mormons, all those businessmen who go on "work trips", and certain immigrant communities as well since they practice polygyny almost exclusively to my knowledge.

Those 'businessmen who go on "work trips"' are cheaters, not poly. The difference is pretty clear.

The problem with the article is that it presumes a different set of social values than are widely accepted in current society. If you're drawing conclusions about a phenomenon for a society that values egalitarianism and gender equality, but are using cherrypicked datapoints from societies which decidedly never truly valued egalitarianism and gender equality in the first place, then you are at best making an honest, though fundamentally obvious, mistake, and at worst, outright lying.

Our society, despite a lot of the rhetoric and pretenses, isn't egalitarian or liberated from gender norms or the material conditions that support them.

I won't argue otherwise. But I will argue that our society DOES value those things, even if the current implementation is far from perfect.

Even serial monogamy has led to more mild occurrences of the phenomena we could expect from widespread polyamory. Ostro presented a decent explanation for why this argument largely falls flat earlier.

Ostro is on my ignore list, so...

Some of it is biological. Some of it is cultural and social. Polyamory may work fine among your small, insular, and marginal community, a community largely populated by progressive, college-educated people who don't really care too much about social institutions. Your norms and concerns aren't the same as those that predominate in the rest of society and, even if they were, I'd rather impose my preferred model on society than yours.

Your 'preferred model' is unnecessary and counterproductive.

I won't guess as to which of those the author(s) of the articles in question are guilty of.

Perhaps you could present data that provides a compelling counter-narrative? We do have examples of societies where polygyny isn't the most common sort of polygamy practiced. Demonstrate that we'd get something akin to what Celt insisted would happen.

See, what you've done here is you've cheekily tried to shift the burden of proof. Its not my job to disprove your claim that polyamory is bad. Its YOUR job to prove it. And you, quite frankly, have not really done so (despite trying).

Which is fundamentally saying that men aren't at all responsible for when they rape, kidnap, murder, assault, rob, and commit fraud, and that they require women to avoid doing them (which is somehow sexist against both women and men, and is fundamentally freudian in its flawed conclusion, AND perpetuates rape culture). Likewise, I have to question if they truly accounted for the fact that all of these crimes were more common even in monogamous societies of the past, and are more common in unstable societies of the present. Like, this is truly a prime example of fractal wrong-ness.

Pointing out that particular social institutions and models can produce social dysfunctions isn't the same as absolving people of moral responsibility.

That's absolutely what's going on here. You're claiming "poly bad" because "lonely men act badly", and the IMPLICIT claim is that to prevent bad actions, lonely men need to have women.

Poor people don't cease to be moral agents simply because a society that allows widespread poverty without a social safety net makes criminality, instability, and violence more common.

Sure, though that does mean a society with those problems and widespread poverty should have a healthy social safety net. And that's the fundamental problem with the 'poly bad because lonely men are terrorists' argument, because lonely men exist regardless of polyamory, and thus, truly solving the 'problem' of lonely men requires gutting women's agency and assigning them to lonely men.

Accepting your reasoning for 'poly bad' inherently requires state-assigned girlfriends and functionally chattel slavery for women. Something which the incel community will jump for joy over, but hardly anyone else. I didn't think I'd have to articulate that to a woman.

You're arguing like a neocon here. We can both punish rapists and murderers and structure our society in such a way that people are less disposed to become rapists and murderers.

And we can have reasonable legal benefits for polyamory without lonely men becoming rapists and murderers.

Sounds like the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In fact, hell, this alone proves the conclusion doesn't apply to Western societies at large, because Western societies do not have brideprices. In fact, it could equally be argued that the existence of the brideprice itself is the cause of these things, not whether or not the society which has it allows polygyny or not. Of course, that argument would itself require conceding that men only become involved in bad behavior when sexually frustrated with no outlet, and that they must have access to a woman to be satiated (which is extremely rapey and blatantly incorrect to say). I refuse to concede that argument (an argument which is DIRECTLY implied by both articles).

A bride price is one mechanism that can block men out of marriage but it isn't the only one. The issue is that, even in our society, polygamy is going to exacerbate socioeconomic

Abolish capitalism, then.

and romantic disparities.

Full gender equality and teach people to not be shitty people that nobody wants to be romantically involved with.

I think it's a given that men who are unable to get married and unable to start families are going to have much less of a reason to give a damn about social order than men who do have those opportunities.

I think you're fearmongering.

The Saudis. Polygyny can actually result in a higher fertility rate. Polyandry, on the other hand, tends to depress the fertility rate of a population. For obvious reasons.

I was attempting to use polyamory to here mean the liberal progressive term where it's totally, for realsies, completely different from anytime anyone ever tried this before.
In other words to get an example that we can both(me and gren) agree is polyamory and one which isn't .9 TFR dog moms.

lolwat

With going on 8 billion people, increasing resource strain, climate change, overcrowding, etc., something tells me making more people is pretty damn low on the radar.

Population contraction can have a good many deleterious consequences. Given the United States may have a fertility rate as low as 1.77 births per woman - the replacement rate is around 2.1 births per woman - encouraging social models that depress the fertility rate even further could lead to population contraction and the deleterious consequences in question at a faster rate.

The fundamental causes of the lower birthrate are due to socioeconomic inequalities caused by capitalism. I.E., people literally cannot afford to have children. There's also quality of life issues (who wants to take care of a whiny, screaming, illogical shit factory and mess maker for nearly 2 decades, even if you could afford it?), and the aforementioned issues regarding overpopulation.

lmao are people still doing malthusian economics

Malthus was right for the wrong reasons.

Nobody can dispute that the Earth's resources are finite, and that unless humanity colonizes other planets, there will come a point where humanity's need for resources will outpace the Earth's ability to provide them, and that if preserving the environment is also a concern, that limit is even lower. Those are simple, self-evident facts. In several areas, we have crossed, or are in danger of crossing, the Earth's ability to provide resources while preserving the environment. Climate change is just the most obvious impact.

I could argue the "live and let live" position on ethical grounds.

Live and let live is a slogan for people too afraid to have positions.

[citation needed]

The personal is political, all social interactions have social ramifications. Everything one person does ultimately affects all of us, so we have a vested interest in regulating individual actions.

And yet, there must be a line. If my actions as an individual are regulated so tightly that 1984 looks like a libertarian paradise, what's even the point in living? I might as well kill myself in such a dystopian hellhole.

With going on 8 billion people, increasing resource strain, climate change, overcrowding, etc., something tells me making more people is pretty damn low on the radar.



We in the poly community arguably do. Open and honest communication, not being jealous, and mutual respect for your partners. Its not exactly a big fucking secret, and they're the same things that lead to success in mono relationships.



Just like any relationship ever. Geez, man, that's the 2nd lamest argument against it ever.



There's no reason they need to be any worse than for mono relationships. Which are a clusterfuck.

So you're an advocate of genocide? Because preventing people from having kids is a time tested means of wiping them out.

Nope. Saying that people should voluntarily not have more than one kid =/= using the power of the state to stop people from having kids altogether.

But nice strawman, though.

I generally take opposition from reactionaries as a sign that I am doing something right.


The views of religion are completely meaningless to me. You might as well have told me that polyamory is bad because a rock you found on the sidewalk was etched with words that told you so.


Like what?

UMN's bit about social influence becoming concentrated was somewhat compelling, but becomes less so when you realize that the alternative is to admit that some people should be forced to marry people whom they would not choose to marry in a free society, and I react to that idea with great animosity.

My response to that is that social scarcity limits freedom necessarily, of course, but economic scarcity limits it far more, and in a society in which polyamory is legal (and not simply decriminalized), economic scarcity can become a far greater tool of coercion than social scarcity (i.e. smaller number of desirable partners) could ever be. What is more free? Settling for a partner you don't want to marry in order to not be alone, or marrying someone with a higher economic station because otherwise you could never pay off your debts? Neither are without some level of intrinsic coercion, but one is less coercive than the other.

By this argument, you might as well ban marriage altogether, because Man A might marry Woman B (for whom Man A is her ideal partner, who is Man C's ideal partner, forcing Man C to settle for Woman D (whose ideal partner is Man E, who is in turn married to Woman F, ad nauseum).

No, they’re more likely to see it as elite decadence then anything else, since most middle class people tend to be more conservative on sexual matters, since the group most likely to call themselves middle class is more likely to be elderly. You’re extrapolating trends based on patterns that no longer hold true.

Do you have any statistics suggesting that we could expect polygamy to exclusively remain a degenerate custom of the affluent? Mind you, I don't expect all those people who become millionaires at sixty to go out and invest in mail-order brides but you might see certain professionals who make in excess of $200,000 annually marrying people with whom they would have cheated in the past. That's over 5% of the population, more than enough to replicate the social dysfunctions we see in countries where polygamy still occurs.

You could just as well argue that groups of less-affluent people will band together as a polycule, loving each other, and most importantly, sharing financial burdens between themselves, preventing them all from becoming destitute.

You're asking us to give social approval

acceptance

to this practice and then inviting us to hope

realize

that it remains confined to the margins.

has no serious negative consequences in the grand scheme of things.

Fhicks'd.

Normalization and institutionalization. At the moment, such arrangements are usually subject to some degree of social censure because we view it as icky and exploitative, which prevents it from becoming a more mainstream cultural practice. You're asking us to give social approval to this practice and then inviting us to hope that it remains confined to the margins.

The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

And more importantly, always has been. It ain't even new.

Gren attempted to argue that bride prices were the issue but I pointed out that this was merely one form of social control and gatekeeping when it came to marriage.

And yet, it is still the most significant economic factor in that system of social control and gatekeeping, and one of the ones that should absolutely be gotten rid of.

The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

There's a difference between "finding wealthy people to leech off of" and being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable.

Yes, there is a difference between sugar daddies and literal human sex trafficking.

What's there to "warn" about? You talk as though this is a bad thing, which it's not.

Polygamy and incest are very much bad and usually exploitative things.

Disgusting as it is, as long as no kids come from the relationship, and everyone involved is an informed and consenting adult, I see no reason why the state should prohibit incest.

Wait, how is finding a wealthy person to leech off of because you're economically vulnerable not "being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable?"

Let me provide a hypothetical situation:

Person A is a college student with student loan debt. To cover this, she seeks out a relationship with a wealthier older man who can provide for her.
Person B is a homeless woman who is approached by a wealthier older man with promises of a place to live if she provides him with sexual intercourse.

While their motivations are the same, Person B is ultimately being coerced actively while Person A is providing some voluntarism to her coercion.

The key here, is to abolish capitalism. Then neither person A nor B will need to sleep with a rich, older man in order to obtain the basic necessities of life.

Individualism when taken to extremes is bad.

Likewise, collectivism when taken to extremes is bad.

Polyamory is for hypergamous women and womanizer men who serially cheat and have babies from like 5 different people. It's literally just glofiried gaslighting cheating and abusive relationships. No one should have more than one partner

Um, hello, based department?

Based on what? Inceldom?

A lot of people have also said pedophilia and zoophilia was next to become fully mainstream and widely socially acceptable, recognized and legalized after gay marriage and acceptance, but that hasn’t happened and most likely never will happen.

Tell it to Ghislaine Maxwell and all the "minor-attracted persons" rambling about "pedosexuality."

Child molesters are still perfectly acceptable targets (and rightfully so), and nobody outside of their community accepts that. And, as I have previously pointed out, the loopholes that have historically allowed adults to have sex with children have been closing, rather than expanding.

They are still actively shunned, including by those of us who are 'social-collapse enthusiast' SJWs.

Polyamory was one of the things the neocons warned about back in the 1980s and 1990s, and, lo and behold, we have people advocating for it without even the slightest hint of shame now.

People have been doing it blatantly for years, decades, even.

To be honest, their argument is increasingly seeming like a stroke of brilliance despite the fact that I have no issue with the LGBT+ community at all. I'm just tired of people actively deconstructing and hurting the social fabric for the sake of a religious dogma.

Nobody is hurting the social fabric. Just cutting out the ugly and worn areas, and patching them with better and newer parts.

To avoid cluttering my post, I will simply refer to the post, but, answer me this: since patriarchy is a thing, how would polyamory not be twisted into something serve it? How would you be able to prevent such abuses of the system occurring?

Monogamy is just as prone to reinforcing the patriarchy. The key to stopping something from serving the patriarchy is to dismantle it directly, not arbitrarily label certain things as tools of it, and ban them for no real reason.

1. And yet, Polyamory is different in the respect, Person A is married to person B, and Person C is married to person B but not person A.
Polyamory is not as straight forward as polygamy.

I'm using the anthropological and sociological definitions as presented in the peer-reviewed article I posted earlier because those are the definitions that are pertinent in discussing social dysfunctions and institutionalized sexual behaviors. As I have pointed out numerous times, with empirical evidence supporting my argument,

Define "empirical evidence". Because what I've seen has been inaccessible and/or of questionable accuracy. You didn't even provide an accessible source with hard numbers (and a detailed methodology of how those numbers were obtained). You gave one link that had everything but the abstract hidden behind a paywall, a practice which is elitist at best, and disingenuous at worst.

what you refer to as polyamory is one of the rarest forms of the practice of having multiple romantic partners, both in societies where polygamy is routinely practiced and in the West where polyamory usually takes the form of informal polygyny. Legalizing polygamy will by necessity legalize all forms of the practice, not just the super liberal, free love one that you like.

2. Articles relating to polygamy are not the same as actual articles relating to polyamory.

A psychological think-piece on a small aberrant community's sexual and romantic practices, albeit with some excellent and irrelevant data cited in its references,

Funny, that's basically what I'd characterize the sources provide by Cek, and what I've seen from you, as.

and a Wikipedia article do not really counter two peer-reviewed sociological and anthropological studies on the broad pattern of social behaviors wherein people have multiple sexual and romantic partners. You're trying to reduce the definition in a way that excludes all the forms of polyamory that you dislike so that you can say there won't be consequences if we legitimize and normalize polyamory through polygamy. The problem is that you can't engage in discrimination against the people who are very likely to adopt the practice and who are in the majority with regard to the practice. People can consent to polygyny. In fact, more people are doing that in the West at this very moment than any other sort of polyamory. The data corroborates it. So stop being weasally with your definitions and address it.

3. I'm not even polyamorous, so mentioning "my lifestyle" is incorrect.

My apologies. I misremembered you mentioning being polyamorous previously. My bad.

However, linking polyamory to paedophilia is pathetic, as the former is with consenting adults, the latter is not. Retract your comment that polyamory is like paedophilia.

Absolutely not. At the moment, polyamory is linked to pedophilia.

What the ACTUAL FUCK, Fahr? I very much resent this statement. You were supposed to be the reasonable one.

In fact, the most prominent cases we have, if we disregard the extreme minority of cases and behaviors you agree to define as polyamory, are related to the government cracking down on polyamorous/polygamist groups that engaged in child marriage, often with multiple spouses. I'm not going to disrespect the struggles those girls had to experience to make people who deviate from sexual norms comfortable. They can come up with a new term for it if the historically problematic power dynamics involved with the anthropologically correct perturb definition them.

Good lord, this is no different from when the homophobic preachers used pederasty to condemn same-sex marriage.

I'll tell you the same thing I told the homophobes on here before Obergefell: We can, do, and should crack down on pedophilia without infringing on the rights of people not engaging in pedophilia.

I have also yet to see evidence that polyamory will lead to a societal collapse.

I never said it would lead to social collapse. I said that legalizing polygamy, which is what government acknowledgement and legal protection for polyamory effectively does, will lead to the legalization of all forms of polygamy, including the most popular form in the West - polygyny. I then argued that widespread polygyny would lead to social instability, devaluation of women and lower-class men, higher occurrences of sexual assault, murder, and violence, and exaggerated social inequalities. I have sociological evidence for all of these claims.

Evidence which I have reasonably called into question.

You said I should care about what people 4 doors down the street for me do.

Yes, you should. That is part of being a conscientious citizens.

People have a right to privacy, and people shouldn't be peeping Toms, or social snitches.

The entire social liberal movement is built and relies on continually finding new things to advocate for, this can't even be argued against.

Its not "continually finding news things to advocate for", its fighting against injustices that currently exist. Child molestation will never not be an injustice, so it will continually be fought against.

This is no different when people were questioning gay marriage and wanted to know what was happening with their lives because it was not the norm.

They are quite similar. People afraid with embracing or altering what the concept of love is, because that's what LGBT marriages fought for too. The inclusion of same sex love.

LGBT couples wanting to be treated exactly the same as non-LGBT couples is not the same as polyamorous people wanting special treatment.

I remember when the shoe was on the other foot, and the homophobes were the ones saying we wanted special treatment for wanting to be able to get married. Its a shame you have forgotten that in 5 short years.

[Punished UMN]

Your life already is very regulated, Gren, you just don't notice your chains because you don't struggle against them.

Social scarcity of course cannot be gotten rid of but it can be mitigated.

Abolishing capitalism is important but it is not the only reason for economic and political inequalities.

[Celritannia]

They are quite similar. People afraid with embracing or altering what the concept of love is, because that's what LGBT marriages fought for too. The inclusion of same sex love.

It's not so much about altering the concept of what love is in my view. I don't perceive that to be a worthwhile expense of government time and effort. It's about the probable social impacts for me. LGBT+ people won't ever be even a significant minority of the population and they, more or less, wash each other out. Widespread polygyny or polyandry have been practiced in the past, with informal polygyny still occurring often in the West, and there's no reason it wouldn't become widespread enough to impact society in negative ways.

If we could allow what you call polyamorous marriage without mutilating our own logic behind freedom to marry and without violating constitutional and federal protections against discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, gender, and sexual orientation, folks could have their cake and eat it too. But there's not really a solution to the problem at the moment aside from just refusing to acknowledge polyamory at all.

And problems still exist in monogamous relationships too, as well as the institution of marriage being predominately patriarchal as well.

Society has always adapted and changed and has seen benefit and concern, but does that mean we should simply ignore what people have the right to do because you are not understanding polyamorous relationships?